Shield Law Folo

This gets to the point I make below--protecting whistle-blowers is one thing when contemplating a shield law, though those laws are usually designed for journalists. It's another to hide behind the leakers while anonymously damaging people, which is Valerie Plame's point. And is the fourth graf snarky or what?


Plame Book Criticizes Bush, Journalists
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose 2003 outing touched off a White House leak scandal, said journalists hid behind the First Amendment after allowing themselves to be exploited by the Bush administration.

Plame writes about the leak, the scandal and the perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in her memoir, "Fair Game — My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House." A copy of the book, which is to be released Tuesday, was purchased by The Associated Press.

She offers harsh words for President Bush, whom she assails for administration "arrogance and intolerance." She also said criticism of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a "dress rehearsal" for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth effort that impugned Sen. John Kerry's war record during his unsuccessful quest for the presidency in 2004.

Plame often writes from the perspective of spectator to a scandal. She discusses being uncomfortable in the limelight, even as she poses for magazine photographs, attends posh Washington fundraisers and is whisked backstage at a rock concert.

The book represents the first time that Plame has publicly discussed the scandal in detail. After a lengthy trial, an FBI investigation, countless news articles and congressional testimony, however, few revelations were left for Plame's book.

Some of the details Plame had planned to offer, including discussion of her CIA career and her job responsibilities, are redacted in the book. Sometimes that means whole pages of blacked-out text. The CIA objected to the publication of this material and Plame lost a court fight to include them. CIA employees have to clear their writings with the agency.

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in 2003 in a story about Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. Wilson said that trip debunked some prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, yet the intelligence made it into Bush's State of the Union address that year.

Shield Law's Financial Test

Some bloggers who report on politics and other issues but either don't get paid or have other careers apparently wouldn't be covered by the journalists' shield bill just passed by the House.

This is a tough question: I don't think every single person who whips out a video camera and gets into a fracas or even simply writes about an event is automatically a journalist. But I don't think that a financial test is the answer, either.

And the problem with a shield law is this: that which isn't covered specifically by the law is most likely going to be declared illegal. And thus we have a law governing a free press. Bad move.

Strengthen the whistle-blower law (my commenter's view to the contrary); stop using anonymous feeds from the government, of any political persuasion, to attack others and, if a source deliberately lies, then out him. But don't give up your right to print that which, in many cases, shouldn't be classified anyway, to gain some limited protection from the law. In the end, it's not going to be on your side.


From OpenLeft

The House just passed the Free Flow of Information Act, a 'shield law' protecting journalists. Here's the rub.

The bill provides journalists with a qualified privilege as to sources and information, while at the same time, recognizing the need for effective law enforcement and robust national security. A blogger who regularly engages in journalistic activities - such as gathering and publishing news and information for dissemination to the public - and does so for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain would be covered by the shield as a journalist.
I have no opinion as to whether shield laws are a good idea or not, but it's worth noting that this law doesn't cover amateurs, consultants like me, people like Steve Clemons, diarists on Kos, or anyone else who derive most of their income from other sources. I don't understand why 'gathering and publishing news and information for dissemination to the public' isn't a good enough standard.

Here's the list of supporters: Associated Press, the National Association of Broadcasters, Bloomberg News, CBS, ClearChannel, CNN, Cox, Gannett, Hearst, NBC, News Corporation, The New York Times, TIME, and The Washington Post.

All of these groups make their money from advertising. So of course, if you get a substantial amount of advertising you get special protections. Otherwise, not so much.

Shield Laws

The New York Times backs a federal shield law.

The first question, of course, is today's most pressing one for journalists: who would qualify for such protection? Do you count amateur bloggers? Professional writers who mostly write online? Do you have to be in print to qualify?

Is an economist turned press critic such as Atrios a journalist? He certainly writes cogent press criticism, from a liberal perspective. Similarly, Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer and Bush administation critic, writes about legal issues for Salon but also ends up beating up the press. What about the amateur writing about dirty politics, sitting in front of computer at night, in his spare time?

In the past, some newsroom people have opposed a shield law, arguing that the First Amendment is enough and that shield laws end up not addressing every circumstance, leaving people who have relied on them exposed to prosecution. I don't know what it says about the current state of government and media relations--many bloggers think there's already too much synergy there--but I do know a shield law raises a lot of questions.

Other comments:
The Janesville (Wisc.) Gazette

The Wisconsin State Journal


The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

and
the Society for Professional Journalists


and
the American Bar Association


and the
First Amendment Center